I think that the answers you give matter more than the questions you ask, but you need to know what questions to ask before you can give answers. The speakers at the FEE round robin inspired, or ignited so much thought in me. (How is breath different than fire?)
So seeing as I've done a horrible job of keeping up with this blog, and giving my readers new thoughts, I thought I could share the questions I had here. You should know that I would love to hear your opinion on them, if you care to tell me.
1. (on the TP topic) I think that the environment v. economy argument should be judged by the standard of human rights, how they impact people. As June Arunga excellently explained, a strong economy really does help people, and helping "the environment" is vague and often useless. But I still wonder, how does clean air affect people's health? Is a certain level of clean air a human right, or at least something that is good for people to have, like a good economy?
2. (the rest is LD) Mr. Rhemke talked about the idea (I believe it was from Maslow) that your efficiency and success at something indicates its correspondence with your deepest values. So in a way, internal, or private, self-actualization can be seen by parts of yourself that are public, shown to people. But though the outer self and inner self may be similar, does the public judge accurately? Impact: if the public is able to judge accurately, than the argument for competition is stronger, and you can say that competition uncovers truth.
3. Follow up question: Can competition further absolute truth? Or can it only discern perception, and relative temporal transient material truths? This is a confusing question, because the distinction I'm trying to make is not clear. More on this later.
4. How can we narrow excellence if its defined as "superiority in its kind"? You want a criterion, but any standard you use would only define one kind, ignoring all others. It's all or nearly nothing.
5. How do you manage the inefficiencies in cooperation? People criticize cooperation for being unmotivated and inefficient, but the problem is really the people, not the system. Yet the system is the people, in a way. If people are good, cooperation succeeds. Also, if people are good, competition succeeds. This is troublesome.
6. Can debaters assume goodness? Can debaters assume that people will be as bad as they can be? (Any system is open to success and abuse)
7. (LD theory) How is a round judged? By how well the general mindset achieves the value in the end? Or by how well people can get to the value if they decide they will follow it?
8. What is the sphere of truth as it relates to the resolution? (That may not even be the question.) I'm trying to explain. Maybe the question is, what is excellence, or what excellence can be achieved? I can see how competition leads us to knowledge about the efficiency of a product, or its relative goodness, or its popular appeal. A market judges relative excellence. Then, what about absolute excellence? Perhaps competition (where things are compared, measured against each other through rivalry) only gives us relative excellence. So the distinction could be relative v. absolute excellence.
There's another dichotomy of sorts that deserves a mention, between "natural things" and "artifacts". Meaning, the distinction between things that are created in nature, and things made by people. I'm thinking about this through the context of Plato's theory of the forms, where he said that there was an ideal form of everything. Well, I don't think there can be an ideal form of things people create, artifacts. So either excellence can only refer to things that are not created by human hands, or else excellence is different that perfection. If we wish to include ever-progressing material objects created by humans, excellence would have to mean the process of excelling. Some things can never be perfect (objectively moral, or true) but they can be better (even good, or beautiful).
I'm confused. Maybe excellence should only deal with what lasts. Then we can draw a line between passing physical things, and unchanging metaphysical truths. That is, if you're a Cartesian realist. (I'm tossing around philosophy terms like everyone's in my class, sorry, ask questions if its too confusing.) If we divide the sphere of excellence like that, than it makes a lot of sense to run a "competition of ideas" case. Because you could say that ideas, and knowledge, and truth, matters more than simply physical things getting better. What's hard is that much of knowledge is knowledge about the material world. Not all knowledge is metaphysical. Sorry, Plato and Descartes.
See, this last question is, I think, the most confusing. I'm trying to uncover knowledge, which involves knowing the meaning of words (excellence) as well as what categories things belong to. I want to know the reason for organization, I want my claims to be more than arbitrary.
Also, knowing what excellence is achievable really helps you refute an opponent who is trying to give more to their mindset than is humanly possible. Currently, I'm of the belief that excellence cannot deal with Truth as God's moral truth. Unfortunately for the lifespan of this belief, all truth is God's truth. Knowledge about the world is still knowledge. I wonder if it is absolute, and if competition will help uncover it. Now I'm thinking that competition can only judge the excellence that intersects the physical world. That doesn't limit anything, however. "Ideas have consequences."
I think I will be wrestling with this idea for a long time.
Hey, if you read this whole thing, you are amazing. Just saying.
7 comments:
Let me try answering some of these questions;
1. Dunno anything about TP. Sorry. All I know is that clean air is something that we should have. Next question.
2. I don't get this point completely, but from the way I see it, the public doesn't always judge correctly. Actually, MOST of the time the public is WRONG. Just look at today's society about moral values, such as abortion and euthanasia.
3. Competition can motivate us to find absolute truth. That's all I understand about your question.
4. So, we define it in its kind. Whether we're talking about efficiency or justice, whatever can get us toward these goals, is more excellent. I don't see anything wrong about that.
5. Perfection can never be reached. Never. Therefore, we have to judge whether imperfect competition or imperfect cooperation is superior. People aren't perfect either, so...
6. NO NO NO NO! NEVER EVER JUDGE COMPETITION OR COOPERATION LIKE THIS. PEOPLE WILL BE BAD ANYTIME, ANYWHERE, ANYPLACE, ANY SITUATION.
7. The round is judge by how well the value can create excellence, and by how well competition or cooperation can reach the value. (stops and takes a break)
8. I think the question you're asking is "What defines excellence?", or "How do we judge excellence?" This is a difficult question to ask, but the most important part is, EXCELLENCE IS NOT PERFECTION. We can attempt to achieve this goal, of excellence or whatever you call it, but IT WILL NEVER BE PERFECT. Only God can create perfection. I really doubt if this point is excellent or not, so feel free to correct me.
Oh, and one more thing.
Did I write all that?
Ray Zhang, a currently very tired debater.
2. Hmm, very good, very good response. Abortion and euthanasia are immoral ideas, and so perhaps you could use that to argue that competition of ideas isn't effective at judging truth. However, I think it's a fairly strong argument to say that the public can judge a kind of excellence that is relative. That is, assuming that excellence can be relative. (Headache resumes) Competition "selects what people want and exposes errors" (quote from an economics encyclopedia in my aff case) but what people really want is not usually absolute truth. Is it excellence?
3. You're right, the question was confusing. And after that answer to question 2, I think I am saying competition can't further absolute truth. hum.
4. The only problem is that your narrowing is going to be arbitrary. How can you truly say that the sphere you define is the most important or excellent? It seems the only argument is "it's my responsibility to narrow the round." It's hard to defend your particular choice of "kind" ie sphere.
5. Hmm.
6. Point taken, however, it seems wrong and undebatable to assume that every competitor will be a Madoff, every cooperator a lazy bum. Blah, how is one supposed to measure the worth of a mindset when it is so influenced by the integrity of the mind holding to it?
7. I like this answer, I think I will use it for my refutation. It's the mindset that we're judging, not the personal value systems of the person holding to it.
8. Yes, I agree excellence will never be achieved perfectly. In fact, your answer is the one Lilly gave me when I asked her. I wonder if I'm not getting something, because I still seem to think that some types of excellence are even less achievable than others... (goes and thinks some more, and sets aside thinking for a future point, after her to-do list is more manageable, hah)
Yes, you did write all of that. Isn't answering rhetorical questions fun? Yes, yes it is.
Let me respond to some of these (new) questions;
2. First, excellence is relative. If I want to buy a car, choosing a very expensive brand would not be the most excellent choice for me.
True, competition may not create absolute truth, but neither can cooperation, at that. Absence of one does not mean the occurence of the other.
4. The purpose of the value IS to narrow down the sphere. Only by first looking at competition and cooperation in this sphere, can we then compare it to other values.
6. Sorry. I think I made you misinterpret it. Competition AND cooperation can both be misuesed. So we don't assume people are going to be extremely bad, but its debatable if they're going to be as good as the other debater may put it.
7. Thanks for affirming my statement!
8. Of course some types of excellence are not as achievable. I may want a Ferrari, but I don't have the money, so can I get it? NO. So, unfortunately, I go with the next lowest level of excellence, a Honda Civic. Something can be excellent in only a few spheres, but when taken outside of those, it becomes, well, less excellent.
Anymore questions?
2. "Relative" is a very confusing term. Good point, that people's preferences vary, so one object cannot be absolutely excellent for everyone. I think my question was asking about an excellence that was within the object, and not correlated to different people's needs. And I guess the answer is that there can't be objective excellence, unless everyone agrees on the standard that the "judge" of excellence is using.
4. Ah! You're right. How is it that you understand debate theory better than I do? :P
6. Thanks for clarifying.
8. Your example doesn't seem to really relate to this resolution, or to the process of competition. ...
By the way, this debate-outside-of-the-debate round is very fun, and a good way of discovering truth. =)
On the issue of point 5.
I think this is an interesting point you bring up. The problem with cooperation isn't cooperation itself, rather it is the people.
However, the point that Ray alluded to is really the refutation of that argument. Cooperation and Competition work within a system made up of flawed people. Since the people are flawed and will also be flawed (at least as long as the debate is relavent), then the true test of these two ideas is how well they work within the flawed system. Like you orignally pointed out, this flawed system creates some "inefficiencies" for cooperation. That is one of the reasons I feel that cooperation will be tougher to support than most originally thought.
As for point 8.
Wow, what a can of worms. Honestly, as a former debater and coach, I am somewhat glad to see this area being discussed. Only somewhat glad though. Glad, because it is "excellent" that debaters are starting to examine this idea more and are beginning to see the real philisophical depth of this idea. However, as we saw last year, it is very easy to get rapped up in pointless philosophy and lose sight of both real world application and also the ability to communicate our ideas.
I have a feeling this discussion will be growing, and hopefully will fuel productive conversation that is useful both for understanding and communicating the topic.
I will take this time to note, I think this debate blog idea is an "Excellent" idea from both a "pragmatic" and an "idealistic" standpoint :p.
More clarification to do, my brain is half dead from math, oh well, might as well kill it...
@Art, Point 2: My point is, that there is little to no excellence within the object unless the people-or someone-decides that it is excellent. This may or may not apply to most situations.
@Art, Point 4: Umm...
@Art, Point 8: More rephrasing to do; there are different types of excellence in objects (or goals, or whatever), and one of them is if this object can be achieved or not. World peace is a great goal, but since it can't be achieved, therefore it is not excellent. Is this what you're looking for?
@Jake, Point 8: This is more than a can of worms, it's a Gordian Knot. Now, if only we had an Alexander to just cut it apart...:D
Wow...what a tangled web of ideas we weave! Thank you for keeping the values of idealism and excellence alive and thriving in today's world!
Post a Comment